![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaberettExpanded on for swaldman. I'd kinda hoped I'd feel like expanding on it in actual words, but I appear to be pushing myself a bit too hard for that at the moment, so you get this (though by all means ask me questions in comments, because that lets me have the social interaction without the inventiveness.)
The short version is: I don't give a shit about the human impact of my research. Not even a tiny one. I full-stop do not care. I mean, I think oil and mining are unethical so I'm not willing to do them, but that's more out of concern for my mountains that it is out of feeling for my fellow man. I did climate science only reluctantly because so much of it is focussed on people; my uncle, who visited the place before it had to be evacuated due to volcanism, is gently horrified by my attitude to Montserrat.
Whereas in my activism I care very, very little about the long game of trying to tear down our societal structure as a whole and rebuilding in the mould of something better. Not interested; not the place I think my energy is best spent; not the work I am best placed to do. I'm not going to object to other people doing it, but what I want to do is - to the best of my ability - help this person, right here, right now.
I'd got as far as "I consider science a hobby", but Housemate pointed out that the activist work I do is fundamentally about trying to Make The World A Better Place, where people can live more fulfilled and less fear-filled lives; and that science is something I personally find fulfilling without any human element. It makes an awful lot of sense to me that I'm so reluctant to drag "helping people" into the thing I do for fun, given that it's what I spend a lot of my "leisure" time on...
swaldman. I'd kinda hoped I'd feel like expanding on it in actual words, but I appear to be pushing myself a bit too hard for that at the moment, so you get this (though by all means ask me questions in comments, because that lets me have the social interaction without the inventiveness.)The short version is: I don't give a shit about the human impact of my research. Not even a tiny one. I full-stop do not care. I mean, I think oil and mining are unethical so I'm not willing to do them, but that's more out of concern for my mountains that it is out of feeling for my fellow man. I did climate science only reluctantly because so much of it is focussed on people; my uncle, who visited the place before it had to be evacuated due to volcanism, is gently horrified by my attitude to Montserrat.
Whereas in my activism I care very, very little about the long game of trying to tear down our societal structure as a whole and rebuilding in the mould of something better. Not interested; not the place I think my energy is best spent; not the work I am best placed to do. I'm not going to object to other people doing it, but what I want to do is - to the best of my ability - help this person, right here, right now.
I'd got as far as "I consider science a hobby", but Housemate pointed out that the activist work I do is fundamentally about trying to Make The World A Better Place, where people can live more fulfilled and less fear-filled lives; and that science is something I personally find fulfilling without any human element. It makes an awful lot of sense to me that I'm so reluctant to drag "helping people" into the thing I do for fun, given that it's what I spend a lot of my "leisure" time on...
(no subject)
Date: 2014-02-07 09:59 pm (UTC)Science as your for-fun self-care is pretty awesome.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-02-08 09:41 am (UTC)I don't see any especial contradiction here. It's not possible for anybody[1] to care about everything.
I suspect it's also quite useful to not "care" about your science. I think that in the next few years I may sometimes have to take care not to let evangelism for renewable energy creep into my scientific writing.
I think the other commenter has a point that perhaps your human-centred work has a focus on the "small-picture" rather than the "big-picture", and I don't mean that as a judgement in any way - I think that both are valid and important.
This is something I've been meaning to write about more fully at some stage, but... I think that if everybody focussed on the big picture we'd have something close to the most charitable interpretation of right-wing thinking (well, pre-neo-liberal right-wing thinking perhaps), where "the system gets sorted out in the long run for the majority, and individuals who are harmed are a shame but necessary". Which would be horrid.
Conversely, if everybody concentrated only on the small-picture issues - on helping individuals and small groups here and now - then we would have what the right *portrays* the left as, the luvvy short-sighted liberals who don't consider the consequences of their niceness at scale. Which, in the long run, would also be bad.
I suspect that both approaches are important, in balance.
[1] I'm sure there are exceptions. Let's say most people.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-02-09 08:13 pm (UTC)